In a key early win for WHOOP, Inc., a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against a Chinese manufacturer that the fitness and health wearable-maker accused of importing and selling copycat products. In a newly-filed memo and order, a federal court in Massachusetts ordered Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. to halt sales of a lookalike fitness tracker for the duration of the case. The court’s decision signals early support for WHOOP’s effort to protect its product design under U.S. trade dress law – a notable development in the wearable tech space.
The Background in Brief: WHOOP – best known for its screenless fitness tracker embraced by elite athletes and wellness enthusiasts – filed suit in September 2025, accusing Shenzhen Lexqi of deliberately copying its minimalist wearable design. WHOOP’s case centers on what it calls the “WHOOP Trade Dress,” a continuous fabric band that wraps entirely over the device with thin metal accents on the sides – creating a clean, logo-free aesthetic that the company says consumers strongly associate with the WHOOP brand.
Design vs. Function, Distinctiveness
In his February 2 order, Judge F. Dennis Saylor sided with WHOOP, finding that it had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its trade dress claim, finding the design non-functional, distinctive, and likely to cause consumer confusion when copied by competitors. To qualify for trade dress protection, a product design must be used in commerce, non-functional, and distinctive. Judge Saylor concluded WHOOP met all three thresholds. On functionality, the court found that while some elements of the design – like the elastic band or metal accents – may serve a purpose, WHOOP’s specific configuration was not essential to function and did not confer competitive advantage. Rather, these elements were deemed ornamental and could be replicated in other ways by competitors.
Importantly, the court rejected Lexqi’s argument that WHOOP’s prior utility patent covering certain design elements automatically rendered them functional. Instead, it drew a line between patented functionality and ornamental presentation, noting that WHOOP’s claimed trade dress was not the “central advance claimed” in the patent.
At the same time, the judge found compelling circumstantial evidence that WHOOP’s design has acquired secondary meaning – a prerequisite for trade dress protection – through years of branding and public recognition. WHOOP demonstrated extensive advertising, high-profile endorsements, and social media activity pointing to consumers’ association of the look of the WHOOP band and the WHOOP brand. One notable example was widespread identification of Prince William’s WHOOP device during the 2024 UEFA EUROs, despite no visible logo.
Although WHOOP did not present consumer surveys or hard data, the court held that its evidence of consistent design, celebrity visibility, and media coverage strongly supported the claim of distinctiveness.
Likelihood of Confusion
Beyond distinctiveness, the court found that WHOOP had shown a likelihood that consumer would be confused about the nature/source of Lexqi’s design. Side-by-side product images revealed near-identical design between WHOOP’s product and Lexqi’s alleged copy, and WHOOP submitted an Amazon review where a consumer referred to Lexqi’s device as a “Whoop band,” suggesting actual confusion.
>> As a result, the court granted WHOOP’s motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Lexqi from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the disputed devices in the United States during the pendency of the litigation. WHOOP was ordered to post a $200,000 bond as a condition of the injunction. The court dismissed Lexqi’s argument that WHOOP delayed too long in seeking relief, noting that WHOOP acted within months of discovering the infringing sales. The judge also reaffirmed that trademark law – and by extension, trade dress – serves the public by preventing consumer deception.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Beyond the immediate victory, WHOOP’s case may serve as a broader test for the protection of minimalist tech design in an increasingly competitive global market. The decision affirms that sleek, logo-less products can gain legal identity not just through innovation, but through brand-building and cultural visibility.
The case is WHOOP, Inc. v. Shenzhen Lexqi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., 1:25-cv-12690 (D. Mass.).
Share
